I'm a co-founder of NorthBridge Energy Partners, LLC., a consulting firm that helps companies connect assets to power grids. I'm also a former Senior VP of Energy Technology Services for Constellation NewEnergy, Inc., and have 20+ years of experience in the energy industry. I've written for the Boston Business Journal, Mass High Tech and several other online industry publications. I have a B.A. from Williams College and a Masters from Tufts University’s Fletcher School.

What We Should Learn From The Attack On Pacific Gas And Electric's Transformer Station

In December, Foreign Policy.com published an article concerning last year’s April 16thattack on a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&EPG&E) power substation in which at least one person entered the station in the early morning hours through a manhole, and cut fiber cables that took out landline and cell phone service to the area, as well as local 911 services. That individual or individuals then fired over 100 rounds of ammunition (from what the LA Times described as assault rifles) and damaged seventeen transformers. Fortunately, grid operators were able to re-route electricity through other areas and avoid a blackout, but the repairs to the substation took almost a month. The perpetrator(s) have not been found.

Image: wsj.com

Mark Johnson, former vice president for transmission operations was quoted in Foreign Policy as saying “These were not amateurs taking potshots…My personal view is that this was a dress rehearsal” for future attacks.

One surprising aspect about the story was that after it was published, there was no larger follow-up until the Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith picked it up last week. Then the story went viral. The WSJ’s Smith commented in her Q&A blog that one reason the attack drew such a low media profile in its aftermath was that investigators and federal agencies feared copycat activities if attention was drawn to the attack. Smith noted that the grid has a fair amount of redundancy in many areas, so that in the case of an attack, electrons can be routed through other transmission avenues. She also observed, though, that a few substations are indeed highly critical to effective functioning of the grid and need better protection. In answer to the question as to how many transformers would have to be taken out to have a severe impact, she commented “it’s probably not smart to say, but federal officials think it’s not a huge number.”

Image: ktla.com

A number of an analysts have focused on the risk of cyber attacks to the grid. The cyber threat is real, and not to be ignored, but the threat to the physical infrastructure is quite serious as well. Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman John Wellinghoff, who has characterized this recent act as terrorism, has been trying to increase the focus on this issue, and this recent press coverage may indeed help. One solution he offers up is to block transformers from view with metal sheets: effective and inexpensive protection against a shooter.

And that reality is simply absurd. The risk of such an attack is not new. Nor is awareness of the potential danger. In fact, in 2012 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its formerly classified study Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System, a work prepared at the request of the Department of Homeland Security.

In that report, the NAS indicated that the potential damage from a coordinated terrorist attack on the grid could be enormous. “Considering that a systematically designed and executed terrorist attack could cause disruptions that were even more widespread and of longer duration, it is no stretch of the imagination to think that such attacks could entail costs of hundreds of billions of dollars - that is, perhaps as much as a few percent of the US gross domestic product.” The result could be “Turmoil, widespread public fear, and an image of helplessness.” The report also noted that such an event – in a period of extreme heat or cold – could lead to significant loss of life.

The NAS report observed that the areas of greatest vulnerability are our SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition – communications systems for monitoring, control, and alarms) and transformers (the devices used to “transform” high voltage to low voltage – for example, from high voltage transmission to local distribution lines). It also noted that transformers are generally made overseas. Some progress has been made since that report, and some utilities now stockpile transformers to create some resiliency, but not enough is being done.

Now that somebody has done us the ‘favor’ of demonstrating in a non-lethal way (if you can call shooting 100 rounds at a transformer a favor) how easy it is to damage our energy infrastructure, we might just want to take this more seriously and do something about it.

It’s pretty obvious that we cannot stop a willful and skilled attacker intent on damaging the electric infrastructure. There are simply too many convenient targets in too many locations. But what we can do is put somebody in charge to identify and harden some of the most critical potential targets, ensure replacement stockpiles of vital equipment in the right locations, develop a robust resiliency plan, and have the protocols in place for what to do if and when that day comes. What we cannot afford to do is make things up as we go along.

If former PG&E vice president Mark Johnson is right and the incident in San Jose was a dress rehearsal for a larger incident, we are going to look pretty reckless and stupid in hindsight if we fail to take this threat seriously. But that is pretty hard to do if there’s nobody in charge and no apparent political focus or will to make the necessary changes.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Take a moment to check it out on Indiegogo and also share it with your friends. All the tools are there. Get perks, make a contribution, or simply follow updates. If enough of us get behind it, we can make ‘SUPERSITE’ happen!

Dumb Creaky grid totally vulnerable and is probably more susceptible to imploding on its own with a nudge from mother nature. As long as the data ( SCADA ) moves slower that the energy a 5 year old kid with a slingshot could impact it. Just another reason why the grid design needs a major overhaul. Sadly with the sturm and drang terror stuff we will see a ton on money going to protect something that probably should not be there in the first place.

I think as the Big manufacturers accept that the eVehicle market is not only, not going away but getting stronger each year they will start to develop eVehicles in the $20,000 to $30,000 range before other new startups (like Tesla) beat them to the marketplace. Once that happens, there will be a major “shift” in new car sales from ICE engined automobiles to eVehicles.

Also, in less than 5 years, the used eVehicle market will allow those looking for a good used eVehicle in the $12,000 to $20,000 range, to pick up a great deal on a used eVehicle whose battery will also help reduce their utility bill since it can be used to store some of the unused energy generated by their homes solar panels.

Given the choice of buying a more expensive new eVehicle or spending the same amount of money on a used eVehicle and one or more new larger capacity batteries, I think most will go for the latter; especially if they already have or are considering installing, solar panels on their roof.

The above “used” combination would allow these savvy shoppers to save large amounts of money yearly on:

1. Tags and title fees which are based on price/current value.

2. Car insurance, since new vehicles cost the most to insure.

3. Utility bills, since they could store more of their own Energy, verses “giving it” to their Utilities

All kinds of potential use cases could emerge. It will be really interesting to see what happens in the used market. First indications are that EVs depreciate more quickly than ICE autos – based on a Kelly Blue Book survey in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/12/26/plug-in-cars-electric-cars-depreciation-resale-residual-value/4194373/ But the jury is still out.

These types of attacks would be perfect 911-type events that could be done to further limit gun control in the USA, cause disruptions in key infrastructure like those supplying nuclear reactors and/or the disrupt the Grid. These attacks could even be done not only by US citizens, but also by “sleeper” agents of foreign Governments, terrorist or individuals or groups that want to profit from these attacks.

It is not just the electrical Grid that is at risk, chemical plants and similar industrial installations are also vulnerable…

What is need is a PLAN to not only protect our critical infrastructure, which I define as causing over a million dollars or more in related damage) but also “harden” them so that they would survive both a EMP attack and/or a large Solar flare.

Under-grounding of critical transmission lines should also be given top priority since now these lines are vulnerable to large fires which are easy for anyone to start!

We should make “up-grading of the Grid” a National Priority and not only harden our Grid but make it more flexible in order to handle the huge number of Solar (of all flavors) installations that will be made in the future, which would be a spin off of any efforts that are being made to just “protect” our Grid.

One thing that we really need to guard against is that we must not allow this effort to become a “make work” project to further protect our Big Utilities and their shareholders income stream.

I agree that some seriousness of purpose is required here. We cannot do it all at once, but one can make an argument for assigning priorities and starting somewhere. As far as the power grid, it does bolster the argument for distributed gen, backed up by some kind of storage – this would greatly bolster resiliency.